Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-04/Newsroom use

According to the folk at language log ([1] [2]), the entire Olla podrida thing is an outright forgery: Reader Jim Gordon wondered about this and emailed the author of the article. Her response: she and her consultants and editors were aware of the correct name and etymology but thought that some readers might be put off by the notion of rotten food, so they changed the name a little and made up a fake etymology. It seems clear that they were not trying to deceive anyone with evil intent, but I am still taken aback that a respectable newspaper would make up a fake name and etymology. Circeus (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, along the lines of how the other blogger covering this characterized his own gut reaction, some of that tends a bit toward hyperbolic outrage. As you can see if you read the actual Times piece, the etymology was not made up by the reporter but was quoted from a source you'd expect to be knowledgeable about this cuisine. And I'm inclined to credit the Times response more when quoted exactly than when filtered through multiple retellings with a view to proving a point, as the passage above does. --Michael Snow (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]